Calvinism: Is it biblical?

[Djents]

We need to look at God's omnipotence and omniscience in view of His nature. He hates evil. He hates sin. He despises Satan. He does not desire the wicked to perish, but that they turn from their ways and live. Now, if it is His desire, and he's so totally deterministic in his plans, then is He a liar, since these people don't turn from their ways? Why is God patient with everyone, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth? Certainly, I'd go with what the bible says, than what someone else says, who goes as far to say that God has split wills, he wills this, but causes that, for His glory. I don't think God will get much glory for knocking down a domino, or controlling puppets. Having his robots say "I love you" and his other robots to say "I hate you" this is contrary to the nature of God, and of Love, and of Justice, and of Righteousness and of Mercy and of Grace, which are in His being. I'm not saying that I can't reconcile God's omnipotence with human free will. I'm saying that God's omnipotence is revealed in the bible, not a logical conclusion based off of constant thinking of what must be, or what can be. But the bible is the ultimate source of truth revealed from God and about God. Can we say that when God says

“I gave you empty stomachs in every city
and lack of bread in every town,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the Lord.
7“I also withheld rain from you
when the harvest was still three months away.
I sent rain on one town,
but withheld it from another.
One field had rain;
another had none and dried up.
8People staggered from town to town for water
but did not get enough to drink,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the Lord.
9“Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards,
destroying them with blight and mildew.
Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the Lord.
10“I sent plagues among you
as I did to Egypt.
I killed your young men with the sword,
along with your captured horses.
I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the Lord.
11“I overthrew some of you
as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
You were like a burning stick snatched from the fire,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the Lord.
12“Therefore this is what I will do to you, Israel,
and because I will do this to you, Israel,
prepare to meet your God.”

that God isn't true to his word?
If you read this, and have your notion of God's determinism, then you have some cognitive dissonance. He was doing all of this to try to get Israel back to Him. He was reminding them of what He did for them. And what he did against them, to try to bring them back to Himself. "With lovingkindness have I drawn thee" cannot be a true statement if God is fatalistic, since they did not turn back to Him.

[ArchAngel]

I know you want to believe these things about God, and this is what you read from scripture, but it still doesn't really solve the disconnect, you're just saying why you think we need free will, but in order to give free will, there either has to be a lack of power or he voluntarily gives it up, knowing full well what sort of pain, suffering and even damnation will occur.

And is having robots saying "I love you" really worse than having people with free will saying I love you, because if they don't, they'll be tortured horrifically for all eternity. I don't really see how the latter is so much more loving/just/righteous. I mean, maybe you don't hold the common beliefs of hell. It just seems an odd thing that free will is so important, but if you don't use your free will to choose God, than you're going to be tortured forever. It seems... sadistic.

I'll probably jump out of this soon. If you have more you want to say, I'll stick around for that. The only thing I'd really want to express is that the Calvinist's aren't so looney (or blasphemous) compared to Arminianism. Yes, it may conflict with your ideas of accountability of sin and glorification of God, but it jives with teachings of omnipotence much more, and it's really no more man-made than what you are saying, too. And a good calvinist can quote scripture with the best of them, citing verses of "The Elect," and predestination. A little humility, I guess, is warranted.

[Djents]

Calvinism came in at about 1400 AD, while Augustine came in at about 400 AD. Now the time between Calvin and Augustine, no one believed that. And definitely not before Augustine. Those who typically did, were refuted by the early church fathers. If you read what I put in the first post, then you'd see that Augustine used to be a neo-platonic philosopher, who converted to Catholicism. He later "found" fatalism in the bible. Now, I'd have to ask the question, why, after all of those years, did someone just then find out about the "true" God of the bible? The reason I quoted Justin Martyr, is because of his preeminent influence in the early church. If you read their works, you'd see what they believed, and why. Do you think all of those Christians were deceived? and then Augustine happened to come along and adapt the bible to his previous philosophies?

[ArchAngel]

So, you can't learn more over time, but rather just try not to unlearn things as you go?

[Djents]

So, you can't learn more over time, but rather just try not to unlearn things as you go?

Do you think eisegesis is a good way to interpret the bible? You shouldn't add things from other religions/philosophies. The bible is complete as is, you just don't learn "new" things from the bible which weren't there in the first place. Like those who find pantheism in the bible. It's just not there. Or those who read mysticism into the bible, or gnosticism. The point is, he read those ideas into the bible, which is not proper biblical hermeneutics. And just as there are people who take things out of the bible to itch their itching ears. Like "OSAS" or "Eternal Security". I find that unbiblical too. But that's another topic I posted about else where on here. I'm trying to be consistent to biblical revelation, and not preconceived notions from "teachers" teaching with a bias. Which is where Augustine and Calvin went wrong. Calvin got most, if not all of his ideas from Augustine. And think about it, the earliest of the church fathers knew Greek as a first language or as a second language. They didn't go to universities to learn the language, they spoke it, and knew how to use it. Here we have Ignatius, who was likely taught by Peter and John, who says this

If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature,
but by his own choice.

and we have Iraeneus, who was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John

Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some
are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

• Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by
His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God’s Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the
Rebellious.

Polycarp was part of the church in Smyrna, who learned from apostles.

[ArchAngel]

The bible is complete?
Really? Like, there's nothing more to know?

Although, if you really value early church teachings, none of them could hold to this at all, since the Bible as we know it wasn't compiled until a bit later. They literally compiled non-scriptural sources, like letters, that they recognized as inspired which later were recognized as canon.

You seem to be super confident about your interpretation of these texts. Are you?

[Djents]

The letters were commonly read in the early churches. It wasn't compiled as the OT was, until much later. But as happened to Paul, there were people who wrote things in his name, but they weren't from him. Any of the letters that were contrary to that of the apostles and the OT then they were dismissed as heretical. The early church fought quite heavily against people who denied free will, and Gnosticism.

[ArchAngel]

Are the early church fathers infallible?

[Djents]

The bible is complete?
Really? Like, there's nothing more to know?

Although, if you really value early church teachings, none of them could hold to this at all, since the Bible as we know it wasn't compiled until a bit later. They literally compiled non-scriptural sources, like letters, that they recognized as inspired which later were recognized as canon.

You seem to be super confident about your interpretation of these texts. Are you?

Do you suppose that we have other things we should add to canon? Like those of the Jehova's witnesses or those of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, or of those of the Seventh Day Adventists? Any "new revelation" from God should be taken with a grain of salt. There are some "christians" who are involved with mysticism and claim to get revelation from God. They Christianize the mystical terms, making them seem to be Godly, but in actuality they are not. At the present moment, I am still learning. I don't claim to know all things about scripture, but what I do know, I believe. I only started to research Calvinism because my grandpa told me about double predestination. I researched it. I grew up believing what John 3:16 says. I couldn't reconcile the idea of double predestination with that verse. I read a website called examining Calvinism, which refutes these ideas with scripture. Of course, you can't pit scripture against scripture, you can only read things in context, and if one quoted from the OT then you read the OT scripture to understand more what the writer, like Paul, is talking about. The Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see if Paul was telling the truth, and because of that, a good number of them believed. One of my favorite verses comes from Paul in Romans, which it seems Calvinists ignore, especially in light of Romans 9, when Paul says about God, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" but Paul says later, in Romans 11

As far as the gospel is concerned, they (the jews)are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their (the jews) disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may nowh receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

So how does God have mercy to all, if he only has mercy on some? Of course, He only has mercy on them that are obedient unto faith, who are willing to take Him at His word, and hear His voice. I can't, for the life of me, understand why Jesus would lament over Jerusalem, if He wanted them condemned.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

And why Jesus said this

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14]b

15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

Now, I don't see how someone can "shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces" if it's God who chooses "You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Makes no sense either.

[Djents]

Are the early church fathers infallible?

I do not claim that they are infallible, but if anything, truer than most teachers today. Those teachers who water down the gospel just to have a full building, who itch their ears. I'm more willing to believe the earliest of the church fathers than the leaders of the church today. We have been compromised in a lot of things. Like those of the Word of Faith movement who say that Christ was born again in hell, and that God has a body, who claim they have trips to heaven, and that God tells them things, that are contrary to scripture. But that is not all of them. There are a few "jewels" out there, but a good lot of them are not "jewels" maybe they're deceived, or deceiving purposely. But as Paul says "But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived"

[ArchAngel]

Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I have no stake in this,and I don't really care, but don't write off the JW, LDS, and 7DA so quickly. As far as Judaism is concerned, you're both expansion packs. Or, maybe Christianity is the sequel and LDS is the expansion pack. Like Judaism is Starcraft, Christianity is Starcraft II, and LDS is Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm. Yeah, I think I'm going to stick with that.
I wonder what the Legacy of the Void would be?

What do you mean you can't pit scripture against scripture? You're not supposed to make sure they coincide? Just pretend they work out? Seems like you're using that to write off verses talking about God having chosen those to come to him, like Ephesians 1:5, Romans 8:29, or just blah. I wonder if a Calvinist is allowed to write off the verses you quoted?

Of course, you can take my position and come to the easy conclusion that the Bible isn't cohesive, or, you know, isn't right, but I guess that's not much of a choice for you, huh? Which is why I'm advising humility. They have points. It's not like they are all herp-a-derpin like those New Agers.
Actually, I think they are more inline with the Bible. They have specific verses that point out predestination, it's a logical step from an omnipotent being, and Arminianism doesn't satisfy the Problem of Evil or prerogative of judgment either.

[ArcticFox]

...he voluntarily gives it up, knowing full well what sort of pain, suffering and even damnation will occur.

This is prettymuch it. Freewil is the highest priority. I could elaborate on that but I don't want to derail you guys' discussion. Just wanted to drop in my 2 cents.

(Besides, most of what I'd say is somewhat unique to Mormon theology so it might not even be relevant to anyone else here.)

[ArchAngel]

When I start comparing religions to expansion packs, maybe it's best I bow out.

Or, blast forward!

[Djents]

When I start comparing religions to expansion packs, maybe it's best I bow out.

Or, blast forward!

Christianity is a "expansion pack" of Judaism only in the sense that, after Christ came, He called the Gentiles, they started being called "Christians" as you can read in Acts. At first they were called "The Way" but they started to be called Christians. And no offense to any LDS here, John Smith got some pretty high "revelation" from "an angel of light" but this he added to the bible, after the Book of revelation, the special revelation and prophecies of God were ended, he completed his revealing of his plan to us through John. I'm not going to trust some one else's revelation claiming they saw an angel, or claiming they saw Christ, Muhammad was no different. And we can all throw out the window that Islam is not Christian. Without Christ's death and Resurrection, we would still be in our sins. What I mean about pitting scripture against scripture, is to argue that one part of scripture is false, you're supposed to view each thing in context, and see what other parts of scripture says about the certain subject, and a certain scripture may be discussing in part something, and another the rest of it. For the LDS to deny the trinity, and to say that Jesus Christ is a created being, is heretical. I don't mean any offence. It's completely unbiblical. Jesus is the one who was, and is, and is to come, the almighty. And the trinity is described in the bible. At Jesus' baptism we can see all three persons. Jesus is baptized, then the Holy Spirit descends upon him like a dove, and the voice of the Father is heard from heaven. It's an attack on God to say that Christ isn't God, and that he was a created being. This is what extrabiblical revelation does to us. There is One True God. We cannot have different gods aside from the True One. God says "I am God, and there is no other" That means that there are no other gods. All other so called "gods" are demons. Now if that's not enough of a reason to dismiss LDS then I don't know what is. "In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning... And the Word became flesh, and made His dwelling with us" Now anything contrary to that is false, and is to be refuted and thrown out.I don't mean to come off as harsh, but this is the way it is.

[Djents]

Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I have no stake in this,and I don't really care, but don't write off the JW, LDS, and 7DA so quickly. As far as Judaism is concerned, you're both expansion packs. Or, maybe Christianity is the sequel and LDS is the expansion pack. Like Judaism is Starcraft, Christianity is Starcraft II, and LDS is Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm. Yeah, I think I'm going to stick with that.
I wonder what the Legacy of the Void would be?

What do you mean you can't pit scripture against scripture? You're not supposed to make sure they coincide? Just pretend they work out? Seems like you're using that to write off verses talking about God having chosen those to come to him, like Ephesians 1:5, Romans 8:29, or just blah. I wonder if a Calvinist is allowed to write off the verses you quoted?

Of course, you can take my position and come to the easy conclusion that the Bible isn't cohesive, or, you know, isn't right, but I guess that's not much of a choice for you, huh? Which is why I'm advising humility. They have points. It's not like they are all herp-a-derpin like those New Agers.
Actually, I think they are more inline with the Bible. They have specific verses that point out predestination, it's a logical step from an omnipotent being, and Arminianism doesn't satisfy the Problem of Evil or prerogative of judgment either.

Romans 8:29 says

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren."

Here Paul says "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son". In chronological order, it's foreknew, then predestine. and It's to be conformed in the image of His Son. In Ephesians 1:5, it's through Christ, the Elect One. The one whom He Loves. We were chosen IN CHRIST before the foundation of the world TO BE holy and pure. Not salvation. In love He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ. It's a given. John 1 says "but to those who RECEIVED HIM, to them He gave the right to be called the sons of God" "He came to his own, but his own did not receive him." That is, the Jews. They didn't receive him. But it's not because they weren't chosen. Paul says in Romans 11

Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

It would make no sense at all for Paul to say "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles TO MAKE ISRAEL ENVIOUS." What would envy do? Indeed, if God had or had not chosen them, for what reason would there be to make them envious? It's to produce in them a Godly jealously, to get them to come to Christ. When ever it talks about "elect" it talks about a group, never an individual. Corporate election in Christ. Was not Israel also Elect? But were all of them saved? No, some were. But the rest of them "turned their hearts to stone" God continuously called Israel to repentance through His prophets. But they rejected Him. Now, i ask you this, is there a way to reject something you were unable to receive? I would say no, and the same goes to salvation, "Christ is the savior of everyone, especially of those that believe" But what of those that don't believe? "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,”a made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ." This is similar to what Paul says else where "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." but if they refused to love the truth, why would he have to send them a strong delusion? To believe the lie the antichrist will be teaching. It's because He hardens them, just as happens to a stubborn ox when kicking against the goads, he only harms himself. In Jeremiah we see this imagery from God with clay.

1This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2“Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

5Then the word of the Lord came to me. 6He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

11“Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.’ 12But they will reply, ‘It’s no use. We will continue with our own plans; we will all follow the stubbornness of our evil hearts.’ ”

These are contingencies. If he announces judgement on a nation, and they repent, he witholds his hand, but if he promises good on them, but they do evil, he changes his mind about it. And here we have another example of foreknowledge, "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and actions.' but they will reply 'It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; we will all follow the stubbornness of our evil hearts.'" God isn't saying this to say that he is causing them to say it in the future, it's because they do it out of their own stubbornness. He foreknew them saying it and doing it. foreknowledge=/=predestining. Otherwise this whole ordeal is useless. I believe He is drawing them because he loves them, and so they will be guilty of their actions, but he leaves repentance in front of their faces.